Willard work session previews draft development agreement for 96‑lot subdivision, flags traffic and infrastructure needs

At a Willard work session, town staff and the applicant reviewed a draft development agreement and preliminary plat for a proposed residential subdivision that the presenters said would be capped at 96 lots, about 2.2 units per acre.

The presenters told the council the cap is a gross density target; they expect to lose “one or two” lots to stormwater detention and estimated a likely final count in the low 90s. The draft agreement would let the developer satisfy a 20% open-space requirement through an appraisal-driven fee in lieu, with options to pay cash, complete off-site improvements (examples discussed included improvements on 400 West and 200 West) or contribute water shares.

Why it matters: the proposal affects traffic circulation, neighborhood lot sizes, park space and utility work in an area of Willard that council members and residents say already sees congestion. The work session focused on design flexibility, potential off-site projects the fee could fund, and timing and triggers for construction.

Presenters said the preliminary plat mixes lot sizes—some roughly 10,000 square feet and others up to about a half acre—with larger lots placed near existing homes. Road improvements in the plan generally follow the town’s 60‑foot standard with curb, gutter and sidewalk; one collector (identified as the 500 road) would be 66 feet and include additional asphalt. The presenters said storm drainage and detention needs mean the net buildable lot count will likely fall short of the 96 gross cap.

The draft agreement would require an appraisal that “strips” the site of implied development value to calculate how much the developer must contribute to meet the town’s open‑space requirement. One speaker described that appraisal approach as consistent with the town’s current code: appraise the land, remove the development premium and monetize the open-space obligation. The resulting fee-in-lieu amount would then be eligible to fund identified projects, which the presenters said could include: - construction or improvement of road connections (examples named: 400 West, 200 West), - off-site improvements to 200 (a north–south connector), or - contribution of water shares to increase irrigation or supply capacity.

Speakers emphasized traffic and access as the primary concerns. Council members said multiple access points are important to avoid funneling new traffic onto 200 South and 200 West, which several speakers described as already congested. Staff and the applicant discussed using the fee-in-lieu to accelerate off-site connections that would spread traffic over more routes rather than concentrating it at existing choke points.

On utilities, presenters said sewer availability and timing are constraints: sewer mains and a road extension must reach the project area before full buildout, and the town will need to coordinate with the sewer-owning parties and a nearby landowner identified in the discussion as Randy. The presenters noted a tentative agreement with flood-control staff on a regional detention basin that would serve part of the development.

Timing and next steps discussed included adopting the development agreement (the MPC zone document) at a future formal council meeting, after which the appraisal would be completed and a preliminary subdivision application would follow. Presenters estimated real construction of new phases could begin in the following construction season and described an overall buildout horizon of seven to ten years.

Direct quote: “I don’t really wanna make changes to the development agreement till we have the work session and explain to the council,” Colt said during the presentation, describing why the draft agreement preserves options and will be refined after council direction.

The work session did not include a formal vote. Presenters said they would take the council’s feedback, finalize the draft development agreement for a formal meeting (the presenters referenced an upcoming council meeting on June 12), order the appraisal after agreement approval, and return with a preliminary plat and any addenda that set priorities for applying the fee-in-lieu.

Local residents and council members repeatedly returned to two subjects in the discussion: (1) traffic and access—particularly the need to improve or pave 200 West and to create a second egress to reduce load on 200 South—and (2) the disposition of open space and park improvements if the subdivision’s open‑space obligation is met by a fee rather than an on-site tract. Presenters suggested one use of funds could be to expand the nearby park and add a baseball diamond to offset loss of on-site open space.